This research will examine the relative importance of mental health coverage in the decisions people make about health insurance. If people fail to adequately assess their likelihood of needing care and choose plans with inadequate coverage of cost-sharing they cannot afford, then the potential for adverse health consequences is high. This is especially true for mental health, where cost is often the deciding factor in whether, or how soon, treatment is sought. Most employer-sponsored plans continue to place significant restrictions on mental health and substance abuse coverage, and these restrictions often vary across plans offered to an employee. The initial work proposed here will use a controlled experimental design to construct hypothetical health plans that vary systematically health plans that vary systematically in their benefits, restrictions, and costs. Student subjects will be asked to chose their preferred option within a particular subset as if they were a new employee decided about benefits; their choices will be analyzed to estimate the decision weights associated with various types and levels of mental health coverage. Long-term research objectives include testing methods of presenting information that lead people to place more or less weight on mental health coverage in their choices, not only when choose for themselves, but also when choosing for others (e.g., family members or a benefits manager deciding what plans to offer employees). This research will apply behavioral decision theory to a common health decision with significant consequences. Results will inform the continuing policy debate on mental health parity and marked-based health insurance.